LAISANGBAM BIMOL SINGH Vs. KONSAM BABULEN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.87 passed in O.S. No. 46/83/21-A/87 by the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur.

(2.) The plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment on declaration of title and with a prayer for mesne profit. The plaintiff No. 1 is the son of plaintiff No. 2 and they are living together. Plaintiff No. 2 purchased from one Laishram Chaoba Singh a paddy field under patta No. 51/1376 corresponding to new patta No. 51 / 949. The area of the land is 2.46 acres. The purchase was made by a registered sale deed on 5.12.53 and the land is described in the schedule of the plaint. It is claimed that the plaintiff was in possession of the land purchased by them. It is stated that by way of family arrangement the land of father was distributed amongst the sons and the land came to the share of the plaintiff No. 1. The defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from the land and as such this suit. A written statement was filed wherein the defendant denied all the allegations made in the plaint including the purchase by the plaintiff. It was further stated in paragraph 3 of the written statement that the vendor of the plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land at any point of time and as such by the purchase the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest to the land. It was further claimed by the defendant that he was all along in possession of the land since 1966 getting settlement of the same from the authority. Another written statement was filed subsequently, but I am not so much concerned with issue No. 1 and Issue No. 3 only. Issue No. 1 is with regard to the purchase of the suit land from Laishram Chaoba Singh by registered sale deed 5.12.53. Issue No. 3 is whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land.

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiff the following witnesses are examined:- (P W1) Laisangbam Ibomcha Singh-He is the plaintiff No. 2 in the suit. This PW 1 was recalled subsequently. (PW 2) Laiphrakpam Shamu Singh, (PW 3) Kiyam Sulo Singh. Following defence witnesses were examined:- (DW l)Konsam Babulan (DW2) Konsam Madhob Singh, (DW 3) Ngangom Mangoljao Singh. Certain documents were also exhibited. The learned Judge took up issue No. 1,3,4 and 6 for decision together. The sale deed is exbt. A-5. The learned Judge in paragraph 5 and 6 of his judgment held that the sale deed was not proved and in arriving at this decision, the learned Judge placed reliance on the following casses:- (1)AIR 1972 Assam and Nagaland 15 (Bhutkani Nath and others-Vs-Mt. Kamaleswari Nath and another) (2) AIR 1957 SC 857 (Mobarik Ali Ahmed-Vs-The State of Bombay) (3) AIR 1968 Bombay 112 (Sir Mohammed Yusuf and another-Vs-D and another).